359
AV1’s open, royalty-free promise in question as Dolby sues Snapchat over codec (arstechnica.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Which is a damn good point. If you don't protect a patent in a reasonable time frame I believe you lose the right to protect it. If Dolby has had this patent for a long time, and allowed it to become part of a standard, it may be a quick dismissal of the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Thinking of trademarks? I'm not sure, but I feel like that is true. To quote a true asshole: "I'm just asking questions".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    No. Pretty sure it's true of patents too. Might depend on which court you're in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Trademarks I think are the most commonplace for this to happen, but I believe it applies to all IP. I don’t believe that any laws are written with specific timeframes but if the court feels that a right holder knew about and didn’t take action against an infringer within a “reasonable” time (as to be determined by the count based on the circumstances surrounding the case), then an implicit license is inferred.

    If this was not done, it would encourage right holders to wait out infringement in order to achieve larger settlements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent